I understand that but if you are running you have no clue that VK0XX
might be 5 or 10kc from you or on another band. Pileup behavior has
never been wonderful and it seems worse now but can it all be blamed on
packet? When a LID finds the pileup he is still a LID right? I would
agree that it appears that in the old days that getting in and out of a
pileup was generally easier. Don't we have more people playing the game
now? That certainly has to be a factor too.
This's it? One thing?
As for people spotting P5 on my freq. It probably happens. It is
easier to deal with now. People have caught on. I have seen reports of
people spotting the wrong callsign or logging the wrong call because RBN
got it wrong. This does not happen as much but that should not have any
effect on a SO unassisted station who has to copy everything on his own.
Packet is the technology and not the problem. The problem is really the
bad apples or operators. How about we blame them instead. So other
assisted folks that do it right get punished or reclassified ie treated
differently because of a few bad actors? That is not right.
Sure packet can be used to cause problems. Some lid can choose to dump
a carrier all over me and chase me around the band, which has happened
or intentionally QRM by setting up 1 kc away and calling cq endlessly.
We have to deal with that. We have to deal with people stealing our run
frequencies and a whole host of other things out of our control.
Packet can be used for good operating too but we only look at the negative.
W0MU
On 12/19/2016 9:37 AM, Kelly Taylor wrote:
Can someone detail how me or others running packet has any impact on
any other competitor? What am I missing here? I get the packet pile
up but rare mults always have pileups.
Hi Mike,
I remember the days before packet, and yes, the rare mults had
pileups. But they grew organically. If you happened to be among the
early ones in the pileup, you had a chance, and it built slowly. If
you were on the other end, you also had a chance to manage it so it
didn’t expand beyond your capacity (not every DX is an N6MJ clone…).
Today, with one spot, it’s an instant 10 KHz wall of sound. Many of
those in the wall are wise, respectable operators and a handful are of
the idiot variety, who either don’t verify the spot before calling or
decide “I’m too important to be smart, so I’m just going to keep
sending my call right at zero beat until he answers. Oh, he’s
listening up? Too bad. I’m too important for split.” Packet also makes
it easier for people to be adding to the QRM even when their focus is
on a run frequency elsewhere, so it undoubtedly adds to the pileup
that way, as well. (Though I will admit that’s also possible with
unassisted SO2R.)
That’s the difference.
The other question is this: if the goal is to work more QSOs and more
mults than anyone else, why do you want to tell everyone else where
you just found the VK0?
There’s also the potential for tampering, though I don’t know if it’s
ever happened; "Oh, W0MU is running on 14.045… let’s spot a P51 there
to mess with his rate…"
*Am I saying we should put the genie back in the bottle? No. *
But it’s not correct to say packet has no adverse effect on other
operators.
73, kelly, ve4xt
ook at 3830 (which is only a fraction of the actual
entrants) you'll see many multiops that only list one
operator.(mostly the
LP gang I think)
True, I suppose its possible some of the fellows filling in the 3830
form
simply forgot to list all the guys at the station that night.
(unlikely, but
could happen)
Others, however, are apparently of the belief that a Multiop means
single op
+ packet. (guess they never read the rules or are
creating/justifying their
own rules somehow in their mind)
I certainly do not speak for the Boring ARC , nor the SP contest,.
but if my
ears are to be believed (packet pileups last night) along with 3830
posts
and misinformed (but perhaps well intended) posts like the ones I
see from
W0MU, then it would appear at first glance that either folks are using
packet and just putting themselves in a multiop category because they
believe that's what they are supposed to do (per ARRL convention) or
something else I have not yet thought of.
Disappointed? Yes.
Surprised? Sadly, no not really.
Part of the problem may be the way the rules are written or they are
becoming watered down. I snipped this from the logs rec'd page mere
moments
ago. Look for the word assisted:
"2016 STEW PERRY
This report generated on Sunday, 18-Dec-16 at 14:58.
Total logs = 436
C = Category (CheckLog, Multi or Single). ASSISTED classified as
Multi.."
Mike VE9AA FN66
Mike, Coreen & Corey
Keswick Ridge, NB
From: Ken K6MR [mailto:k6mr@outlook.com]
Sent: December 18, 2016 8:08 PM
To: Mike Smith VE9AA; cq-contest@contesting.com
<mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] Stew Contest and Multi Op/packet
Mike:
Rule 6. Seems pretty plain to me. Packet is not allowed for single
op, and
discouraged for Multi op. Local skimmers appear to be ok, but
grudgingly.
SP appears to be an attempt to hold on to "Boy and his Radio" (copyright
K0HB) contesting. Kinda like Stew did himself, as I read the history.
Fine by me.
Ken K6MR
From: Mike Smith VE9AA <mailto:ve9aa@nbnet.nb.ca>
Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2016 1:10 PM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Stew Contest and Multi Op/packet
The Stew Perry contest is not an ARRL event, so entering in Multi Op
does
not mean "Single Op + Packet"
I was surprised at a few mini packet pileups I had last night. Now
I know
why.
After reviewing the DX Cluster today and reading 3830 it's apparent
nobody
reads rules anymore.
In all fairness, there were a couple guys using skimmer/telnet/cluster
submitting properly as checklogs as they were chasing new countries or
whatever.
I would suggest to the Boring Club to clarify this point in the multi op
rules. (ie: Multi Op does not mean Single Op + Packet).
Mike VE9AA
Mike, Coreen & Corey
Keswick Ridge, NB
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com <mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com <mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|